3.4L to 3.1L Swap Question

[Breakdown]

3.1's suck ass, 3100's are WAYYY better.

 

I NEVER had a problem with my 3100, and it got 36 mpg fairly easily on the highway.

 

I can't STOP having problems with my 3.1. And the best mpg it has got was about 15. Yes, that was pure highway.

 

I will never own a 3.1 as long as I live.

 

Flame this all you want, But I blame it all on the heat of the engines. Hell, I could drive my Ciera to hell and back and almost keep my hand on the plenum without getting burned. If I drove around the block in the 3.1 though, fuck if I should try to even open the hood without getting burned!

 

Heat takes a huge toll to everything under a hood over time... even the transmissions apparently.

 

I think you have problems.. my 3.1's were slow, but reliable. Plenty of low-end torque, as well. Jack shit up high, but could spin the tires just fine.

 

I'd still rather have a 3.4L or 3100, but I would take a 3.1L Cavalier any day.

 

 

It was fine when I got it, but being a DD after sitting for a year+ wasn't the best of it's life. I would still rather have a 3100. Unless I was guaranteed NEVER to have problems with a 3.1.

 

Just wait, was captain obvious here again!

 

Damn! Must have missed him again. Someone phone me next time!

[Lumineer]

 

I think you have problems.. my 3.1's were slow, but reliable. Plenty of low-end torque, as well. Jack shit up high, but could spin the tires just fine.

YOU could spin the tires on your 3.1s? I have NEVER been able to do that (aside from slick conditions), and I drive like a maniac . Man, my car sucks balls for performance, even for a 3.1

[ManicMechanic]

My '92 convertible would spin the tires with no problem and it had a stock 3.1...

[Addicted To Boost]

My '89 2.8 would SMOKE the tires... but it was also a 5-speed.

[xtremerevolution]

 

I think you have problems.. my 3.1's were slow, but reliable. Plenty of low-end torque, as well. Jack shit up high, but could spin the tires just fine.

YOU could spin the tires on your 3.1s? I have NEVER been able to do that (aside from slick conditions), and I drive like a maniac . Man, my car sucks balls for performance, even for a 3.1

 

That also depends on the kind of tire you're using. I've got Firehawk Indy 500's at 235/60/15 on my regal with the 3800 series 1, which has a lot more torque than anything in a 1st gen w-body, and I can't spin the tires. However, back when I had my Lemans SR at the same tire size, I could spin the tires without even trying.

 

Keep in mind the L27 has quite a bit more torque than the 3.1 and more than the 3.4.

[Regal_GS_1989]

3.8L < 3.1L < 3800 = 3100, I haven't "experienced" the L67 so I'm not going to comment.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.

 

In my experience, 3.1s get excellent gas mileage. My Turbo 3.1 pulled off 31 MPG on the original plugs, wires, and sensors last year, and I also had an 89 2.8 that could pull off 35+ MPG easily. My dad has a 98 regal with a 3800 that struggles to get over 22 MPG with all highway driving.

 

3.1s are excellent motors, but if you are looking for performance out of your Z, find another 3.4.

He should be getting a lot better than 22. Hell, my regular commuting, which is probably about 50% highway, 50% city, I've been fairly consistant at 30 MPG (24.9 Miles per US gallon) On the highway, i've been up to 36 MPG (30MPG US) and if I were to do strictly highway, I should be able to pull between 38 - 40 MPG (32-33 MPG US)

 

This is on my 2000 Regal.